Roland Barthes' Mythologies | Literary Theory | Part 1
Summary
TLDRThis video introduces Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies,' a 1957 text central to literary theory and cultural studies. Barthes explores semiotics, applying sign theory to culture, examining how events like wrestling become myths perpetuated by the bourgeoisie. The video discusses wrestling as a clear example of Barthes' theory, highlighting its artificiality and the predictable yet compelling nature of its signs and narrative patterns. It raises questions about the authenticity of signs and the role of the critic in demystifying cultural myths, hinting at the series' deeper dive into Barthes' work.
Takeaways
- 📚 Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies' is a seminal text studied across various disciplines, including literary theory and cultural studies.
- 🔍 The text explores semiotics, the study of signs, and extends this analysis from language to culture, viewing cultural phenomena as sign systems.
- 🎭 Barthes examines wrestling as a cultural sign, arguing that it is more spectacle than sport, with clear and obvious signifiers.
- 🤼♂️ Wrestling is used as an example to illustrate how cultural events can be turned into myths, which then appear natural and universal.
- 👓 Barthes suggests that myths are often created and perpetuated by the bourgeoisie, reflecting their values and perspectives.
- 🔑 The critic's role, as Barthes sees it, is to demystify these myths, revealing the underlying realities they conceal.
- 🤔 Barthes acknowledges the possibility of creating new myths in the process of demystification, raising questions about the nature of his own work.
- 🎭 The narrative patterns in wrestling are predictable yet engaging, reflecting a form of justice that is extrajudicial and distinct from traditional systems.
- 🤹♂️ Barthes finds a paradox in wrestling, where it is both conventionally artificial and genuinely rebellious, challenging the notion of bourgeois culture.
- 📖 The series of videos aims to delve deeper into the text, covering more examples and the theoretical implications of Barthes' analysis.
Q & A
What is the main theme of Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies'?
-The main theme of 'Mythologies' is the analysis of how everyday cultural elements are transformed into myths, particularly by the bourgeoisie, and how these myths are presented as natural and universal truths.
Which edition of 'Mythologies' does the speaker focus on in the video?
-The speaker focuses on the 1972 English translation of 'Mythologies' in the video.
What is semiotics and how does Barthes apply it in 'Mythologies'?
-Semiotics is the study of signs and their meanings. Barthes applies semiotics not just to language but to culture, interpreting cultural phenomena like wrestling as sign systems that need to be deciphered.
How does the speaker describe the relationship between history, nature, and myth in Barthes' work?
-The speaker describes that historical events are turned into myths, which over time come to seem natural and universal, thus creating a myth that appears as the only reality.
Who does Barthes identify as the creators of myths in society?
-Barthes identifies the bourgeoisie, or traditional and conventional society, as the creators of myths.
What is the role of the critic according to Barthes?
-The role of the critic, exemplified by Barthes himself, is to demystify myths by stripping away their mythical elements and exposing the reality beneath.
What does the speaker suggest about Barthes' own potential creation of new myths?
-The speaker suggests that while Barthes demystifies myths, he may also be creating new ones, raising questions about the possibility of escaping myth entirely.
What is the first example Barthes uses in 'Mythologies' to illustrate his theory?
-The first example Barthes uses is wrestling, which he analyzes for its clear and full signification, character types, and narrative patterns.
How does Barthes view traditional justice in relation to wrestling?
-Barthes views traditional justice with skepticism, as he admires the extrajudicial logic and appeal of wrestling, which rarely presents a truly fair fight.
What paradox does the speaker identify in Barthes' view of wrestling?
-The paradox identified is that wrestling is both conventional and artificial, yet it retains a sense of rebellion, unruliness, and chaos, which Barthes seems to admire.
What question does the speaker pose regarding the authenticity of signs in culture?
-The speaker poses the question of what makes a sign seem genuine and admirable versus artificial and hypocritical, and how to apply such a standard to cultural signs.
Outlines
📚 Introduction to Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies'
This video introduces a series on Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies,' a seminal work in literary theory and cultural studies published in 1957. The speaker focuses on the 1972 English translation, noting it contains fewer essays than later editions. The book is divided into two sections, with the first offering examples, starting with wrestling, to illustrate Barthes' theories. The speaker plans to discuss more examples in subsequent videos. Barthes' approach to semiotics, influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure, extends the study of signs beyond language to culture. He aims to demystify myths created by the bourgeoisie, which he views as a dominant and traditional social class. The speaker suggests that as viewers progress through the examples, they will gain a better understanding of Barthes' theories, preparing them for the book's second part, where Barthes reflects on the implications of his work.
🤼♂️ Wrestling as a Cultural Sign in Barthes' 'Mythologies'
The speaker delves into the first example in Barthes' 'Mythologies': wrestling. Barthes posits that wrestling is a spectacle rather than a sport, with a predictable and artificial narrative that mirrors a play. The outcome is less significant than the dramatic process. Wrestling's signs are clear and unambiguous, with characters and narrative patterns that are easy to read. Barthes appreciates the genuineness in wrestling's artificiality, suggesting a paradox where it is both conventional and rebellious. The speaker raises questions about the creation of new myths and the possibility of a critic being neutral, hinting at the complexity and self-awareness in Barthes' approach to demystification.
🎭 The Paradox of Form and Genuineness in Wrestling
The final paragraph discusses the formalism and predictability in wrestling, yet notes the presence of genuineness that Barthes finds appealing. Wrestling is described as a paradox where its conventional and artificial nature coexists with an unruliness and chaos that Barthes seems to admire. The speaker reflects on the tension between what is perceived as bourgeois and what is not, questioning Barthes' personal stance on the matter. The chapter on the representation of Roman-ness in Hollywood is mentioned as a contrast to wrestling, where signs are artificial but lack genuineness. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the central questions of the book: what constitutes hypocrisy and how to apply standards to cultural signs, which are at the heart of Barthes' struggle with his own mythology.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Mythologies
💡Semiotics
💡Ferdinand de Saussure
💡Bourgeoisie
💡Demystification
💡Wrestling
💡Signs
💡Myth
💡Natural
💡Paradox
Highlights
Introduction to Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies', a seminal work in literary theory and cultural studies.
Exploration of Barthes' 1972 English translation and its significance in understanding his essays.
The book is divided into two sections: examples and theoretical analysis.
Discussion of the first example in 'Mythologies': professional wrestling as a cultural sign.
Barthes' application of semiotics to culture, expanding beyond language to interpret cultural signs.
Influence of Ferdinand de Saussure's theories on sign systems in Barthes' work.
Barthes' examination of how historical events are transformed into myths over time.
The role of the bourgeoisie in creating and perpetuating myths according to Barthes.
The critic's task, as seen by Barthes, to demystify and reveal the true nature of cultural phenomena.
Barthes' self-awareness of the potential creation of new myths in the process of demystification.
Analysis of wrestling as a spectacle with clear, full signification in its signs and characters.
Identification of wrestling characters as types with predictable and clear narrative patterns.
Barthes' view on the paradoxical nature of wrestling as both conventional and genuinely rebellious.
The question of whether there is a standard to distinguish genuine signs from hypocritical ones.
The complexity of Barthes' own mythology and the potential for his work to be seen as hypocritical.
The series will continue with more examples and a deeper dive into the theoretical aspects of 'Mythologies'.
Transcripts
Welcome to the first in a series of videos on Roland Barthes' "Mythologies," which is a text
from 1957. This particular text is a frequently studied work in terms of literary theory, cultural
studies, English -- different disciplines like that. It's not a really difficult text in terms
of literary theory, but it has its challenges, and I thought it might be nice to do a series on it.
Now the text has come out in different editions. I'm looking particularly at the 1972 English
translation. It doesn't have all the essays that Barthes wrote, and later editions include some
extra essays as well. But it has enough examples to to get you started and to really get into the
theory. So, the book consists of two sections. The first section is really just examples ... and in
this video I'm just going to talk about the very first example, which is wrestling. We have this
corny sort of image here, which is fitting because wrestling is all about corniness,
as we will find out. In subsequent videos I'll do at least a few more examples, and we'll see how
many we actually cover. If you want to see lots, you can let me know in the comments, but the main
thing is that as we go through the examples we start to get a hint of the theory overall, so that
when we get to the second part, which is really kind of Barthes taking a step back and thinking
about what all of this means, we will be well prepared to understand where he's coming from and
what he's doing overall. We can already introduce [the book and the theory] a little bit because
he's really talking about semiotics. Semiotics is the study of signs and he's going back especially
to a previous thinker, Ferdinand de Saussure, who wrote a lot about sign systems and how we
should understand them.What's unique about Roland Barthes is that he applies these signs not just to
language but [to] the culture, and that's the big breakthrough here, that he's trying to say, well,
we can not only look at how language functions but we can look at how something in culture (something
like wrestling) can act like a sign system, and we need to interpret that particular sign system. So
in the introduction to the 1970 edition he says, "I had just read Saussure." He says this in the
preface, and he's very conscious of the fact that he's so influenced by this particular thinker.
Now in terms of his big picture, right at the start here even before we get to the theoretical
part we can see that what he's trying to do is he's trying to see how myth functions in
relation to what he calls history and nature. So if we think of history ... we have all kinds of
events that happen. You know, the 1968 Paris Student Revolt, let's say. That's one event.
He actually refers to that in the preface. Lots of different events happen. Wrestling can be an event
too. And what tends to happen is that these events are turned into myth somehow. We create a myth
out of these events. And then over time this myth starts to take up the whole field. In other words,
it seems like it's the only reality out there. It's as if everybody has to believe in it,
and that makes this myth seem natural. So this is going to get a bit messy here, but this ... myth
all of a sudden seems very natural, because it's the only thing that we can think of. We can even
call it universal. It's as if it's the only perspective out there. Now for Roland Barthes
it's especially a certain social class that creates these myths. That's the bourgeoisie.
So the bourgeois myth is what rules supreme and by "bourgeois" he means kind of traditional,
conventional society in this period -- everything that a leftist like Barthes doesn't like,
as you can imagine. He basically says that this myth is typically read or interpreted
or presented to us through a sort of bourgeois lens. So if we kind of draw some spectacles here,
it's as if we are looking through the same glasses all the time. And it's the job of the critic,
which in this case would be Barthes . . . so if we draw him over here, okay, so there he is ... and
he's kind of looking at all of this, it's his job to demystify the situation ... to kind of
take the mythical element away and expose things as they really are. And as he's talking about
striptease in one of his chapters, that kind of taking away of the clothing, I suppose that
that applies also to what he himself is doing. One of the questions would be whether any of
this this kind of revealing of what's really there has its own sexy quality you could say.
Now Barthes is aware that as he is looking at the myth, it's possible that he himself creates
new myths. Do we ever really escape this notion of myth? That raises the question, well, what is his
mythology? Does he have his own mythology? Does he have his own sign system that we from our vantage
point then need to understand? In fact, that's why we can also draw ourselves. This would be
the reader of Barthes ... looking at Barthes. We come with our own spectacles, and as you can start
to see, this really complicates the picture. But Barthes does raise this in his preface,
this problem of what is his own mythology. Is he totally neutral? Can you ever escape myth? These
are some of the questions that he is asking right from the start. So let's have a look
at wrestling then. We'll just sample one chapter here just to get us into the text a little bit. As
I mentioned if you want to have lots of examples covered that's totally fine. You can let me know.
So what is wrestling? Well, the first thing we can say about it is that it's a spectacle.
It's not a sport, he says. It's very dramatic, but the outcome is not as important as the process.
It's much more like a play. We enjoy the action, we follow it, we watch it, but we don't worry too
much about who wins, in part because the whole context is somewhat artificial and possibly fixed
anyways. The next thing that's important is that he talks here about what kind of sign this is. He
says that in wrestling signs are always clear. So as you read each chapter, before you get to the
theoretical part, I would encourage you to kind of try to figure out what is the theory about
signs in this chapter? Don't get sucked into just a topic, whether it's margarine, or cars,
or steak, and stuff like that. Try to figure out what is he actually saying about the way
in which signs are operating here. When it comes to wrestling, he says there is a kind of "pure and
full signification." In other words, every sign is super obvious in what it means. He writes at one
point, "The gesture of the vanquished wrestler (so the wrestler who's on on the mat, you might say,
who's being beaten) signifying to the world of defeat, which far from disguising he emphasizes
and holds like a pause in music, corresponds to the mask of antiquity meant to signify the tragic
mode of the spectacle." In ancient times, they would have these masks on to signify if they were
laughing or crying. It was very obvious. In the same way here, the signs are super super. You're
not going to be mistaken about what a particular move in wrestling or a particular pose represents.
We also see that we have these very clear types of characters. His example here is of Thauvin,
the disgusting man, the bastard, who is cruel and unpredictable. We kind of hate him,
but we also understand his sense of justice and the way he's trying to survive in a certain
kind of world. It's a complicated picture here, but it's nevertheless a type. And if
you've watched a little bit of wrestling, you can probably see other types as well,
like the pretty boy. And there's lots of other ones. But the main point here is that these
types of characters are very easy to read. You know what you're dealing with. We can also say
that there are very clear narrative patterns. ... The stories are predictable. And yet we
enjoy watching them anyways. So, commonly we have "Suffering, Defeat, and Justice." The suffering
has this classical sense of spectacle, which also creates a sort of heroism, because even if you are
a wrestler who's defeated, there's still heroism in that to some extent. The justice part I think
is really quite fascinating here because this is not your traditional justice. One of the things
that you'll recognize as you go through the book is that Roland Barthes, being quite the leftist,
hates traditional institutions, which of course means that he's also going to hate or distrust
the traditional justice system. Maybe that's where he kind of admires wrestling a little bit,
because very rarely is a fight ever truly fair. We're dealing with a kind of extrajudicial way of
understanding the world, which has its own its own kind of logic, and its own kind of appeal.
Another thing that's that's predictable is that we have very symbolic moves ...
when it comes to wrestling. He talks about the hold, the forearm smash,
and other moves. These things are predictable and they have their symbolism, their meaning.
If we sum all of this up, what we can say is that on the one hand we have a great deal of formalism.
All of these things follow a predictable form and a pattern. But there is still something
genuine in wrestling as well. If you read between the lines in the chapter you see that
Barthes is trying to get at that the wrestling is this weird paradox, where on the one hand
it's conventional, it's artificial, it's fake. But you get the sense that it's not entirely
bourgeois in the way that other things. There's still the sense of rebellion and
unruliness and chaos, which I think Bart seems to secretly admire a little bit.
So here right away in the book you start to get this tension somewhat, where we think,
well, is this bourgeois? Is it not? Does Roland Barthes like it? And as you go on,
right away [in] the next chapter he starts talking about representation of Roman-ness in Hollywood.
There he talks about signs that are artificial but are not genuine. So what makes a sign seem
more genuine and something that we can admire and what makes something artificial and hypocritical?
Is there a standard for that? How do we apply that to signs? That's a question that I'm not sure
Barthes always raises or even answers, because that gets to the heart of who he is. What does
he think is hypocritical? That's really one of the issues that this book struggles with. Okay,
so hopefully that gives you a good sense of the first chapter, [and] the introduction,
and we'll go on with our series and talk some more about other examples and the theory.
関連動画をさらに表示
The Death of the author and it's Postmodern implications ( Continued 1)
Structuralism and Semiotics: WTF? Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Barthes and Structuralism Explained
Poststructuralism: WTF? Derrida, Deconstruction and Poststructuralist Theory Explained
The Death of the author and it's Postmodern implications
HARTAIXX2016-V014300
Semiotics analysis for beginners! | How to read signs in film | Roland Barthes Media Theory
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)